Random Things that Fall Out of My Head

Frank Michels is a songwriter, musician, and producer in Nashville, Tennessee. He likes to dig in the dirt and plant flowers, cook tasty things, walk his dog, and play really fast riffs on a telecaster guitar.

They Must be Stopped

Last Saturday, I watched some of the Republican debate in New Hampshire, by which I mean that I caught a few snippets of the debate during the commercials in the Saints-Lions game. But I do remember thinking, “Wow, these sure are a bunch of master debaters!”

Newt Gingrich defended the institution of marriage between a man and a woman, saying it had been around for three thousand years. Of course, so was slavery, but we eventually decided that all people should have equal rights. Newt also claimed that questions about gay rights by the media amounted to “Anti-Christian bigotry.” So now being for basic human dignity and equality for all is anti-Christian? I think Jesus would disagree. Besides, isn’t it kind of ridiculous for a serial adulterer like Newt to be defending marriage?

Then there was the flavor of the month, Rick “Frothy Mixture” Santorum, with his sanctimonious, patriarchal interpretation of God’s word. In Rick’s world, birth control would be illegal, and federal law would prohibit gay marriage, and make all current gay marriages null and void. Plus, all men would have to wear sweater vests. I am reminded of the words of John F. Kennedy, when he was running for President and there was a controversy about his Catholic religion:

“I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute—where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote.”

But today, I think Rick Santorum would take orders from the Pope on how to act. And right-wing Protestant ministers are falling all over themselves to tell their parishioners how to vote, so their candidate can someday pass laws mandating that everyone must follow what the bible says.

Ron Paul has some good ideas. And he’s also got some ideas that are kind of wacko. But that hasn’t stopped him from amassing a good-sized following of rabid, mostly young followers that have embraced his libertarian ideas. Personally, I too would like to see the “War on Drugs” discontinued and fewer involvements in foreign wars, but when Paul gets started on the gold standard and getting rid of all regulation of businesses and financial markets, he loses me. He doesn’t have a chance of being the Republican nominee, but if he decides to run as an independent he could leach support from Romney, whom I think the primary voters will ultimately hold their noses and vote for, thinking he has the best chance to beat Obama.

Romney annoys me. Not because he’s a Mormon, because although their beliefs are strange and silly, so are the beliefs of most other religions. No, the thing that makes me cringe is his fake laugh, the constant “Ha, ha, ha” when he utters one of his campaign applause lines. He reminds me of that rich man character on “Gilligan’s Island,” Thurston Howell the Third. His attempts to portray himself as interested in the plight of the common man are a joke. I think when he is alone he probably lights his cigars with hundred dollar bills.

That leaves Jon Huntsman, who I actually kind of like. Unlike the other candidates, he seems like a reasonable man who believes in science, has empathy for real people, and is smart and capable. So obviously, he doesn’t stand a chance in the Republican Party.

I just wish our political process wasn’t so drawn out and messy. I’m not sure I can take a full year of mud-slinging, attack ads, and debates. I suppose I could do what most people do, and just ignore the political news and remain blissfully ignorant. Then I could join the multitudes who believe that “Mitt” is short for “Mittens,” Newt is a slimy amphibian, and Ron Paul invented a device that slices and dices.

But if I stop watching the news, what would I have to get self-righteously indignant about?

Your tags:

TIP:

Share:

Comments

Yes, I love to get mad at them all. Those photos are great especially the one of Mitt putting on gloves in front of the fudge sign. Huntsman is so smart and real. There is always hope. But Obama is my hope. What a mess.

Lovely piece, Frank! Thanks for such a delicious combination of serious concerns (and thinking) and a "fun" presentation. As for your lovely final line ... um, gulp: I'm going to make my first "public" (i.e. on OS) confession of my weirdest previously personal secret. I DO NOT WATCH TV. Don't even have one. Let me tell you, life bein' as 'tis, you'd still find plenty to be (self)-righteously indignant about. Comes with the territory!

N.B. I sure wish the Republicans would nominate Huntsman but of course that's fantasy.

"I’m not sure I can take a full year of mud-slinging, attack ads, and debates. "

You're in luck as far as the Republican primaries, then. They have it stacked so that whomever wins the January batch pretty much has it tied up. Then they can start throwing darts at Obama, or maybe javelins.

I heard that Huntsman might get that third party from the internet to nominate him. He's the front runner in their poll. Wouldn't that make for a crazy election? Someone that independents like running as an independent.

"he seems like a reasonable man who believes in science, has empathy for real people, and is smart and capable. So obviously, he doesn’t stand a chance in the Republican Party." I think you summed it up perfectly. What a strange, strange group.

This was an enjoyable and frustrating read! I love the pictures, particularly Romney's...looks like he's about to say, 'Bend over and cough." I also like Huntsman even though I support Obama...but he does make too much sense, and I think he looks too much like Romney to win!

No righteous indignation from this quarter - I agree with you and all your commenters thus far.

I watched the debates, out of one eye, but my attention was mainly on the live blogs - the participants seem to be mainly sneering Democrats (I be one, tho of course ineligible to vote) with the occasional Ronbot. It's far less infuriating this way than just watching those lying oafs naked (so to speak).

Frank writes: "Newt Gingrich defended the institution of marriage between a man and a woman, saying it had been around for three thousand years. Of course, so was slavery, but we eventually decided that all people should have equal rights."

The institution of opposite-sex marriage has existed for thousands of years because intercourse between opposite-sex couples is responsible for the continuation of the species. The institution of marriage contains the ideals, roles, values, and norms that tell heterosexual couples how they should live for the benefit of any children that may result from the relationship. Since same-sex relationships are biologically sterile, it comes as no surprise that marriage never included same-sex couples, nor was the exclusion inspired by bigotry against homosexuals.

Another issue is who is the "we" who decided that same-sex marriage constitutes equal rights. So far, in every case in which citizens have been able to vote on same-sex marriage, they have voted against it. It would be more accurate to say that "we" have decided that equality does not include same-sex marriage.

"But if I stop watching the news, what would I have to get self-righteously indignant about?"

I'm not sure how useful self-righteous indignation is, but you might want to consider being bummed out about NDAA 2012. The Republican candidates that are so fun to lampoon are nothing more than a distraction from the real story. You know that, right? Of course you do. ;-)

Great post, and I agree with pretty much every line of it. I don't think it reveals any sort of obsessive attention to the details of these wacko Republicans, as other commenters have said -- if you're alive in the world and you don't know the basic facts about what these guys stand for, you're living under a big stack of rocks. It's hardly "minutiae." Anyway, good job.

Great post, and I agree with pretty much every line of it. I don't think it reveals any sort of obsessive attention to the details of these wacko Republicans, as other commenters have said -- if you're alive in the world and you don't know the basic facts about what these guys stand for, you're living under a big stack of rocks. It's hardly "minutiae." Anyway, good job.

FM - I don't mind your analysis. However, you wrote: "I caught a few snippets of the debate during the commercials..." Then you title your analysis "They Must Be Stopped".

You have made the sophmoric mistake of singing to the choir without consideration that you might have serious replies. So I am giving you notice. From time to time I might show up to review your blogs.

It doesn't matter whether they are total idiots, the point is that Republicans are loyal and Democratic-Liberals are not. In fact, you can bet on the fact that the more stupid the guy is the more likely it is they will vote for him to show their disapproval of Obama, who is a sassy "nigger" to them even if they've gotten smart enough to conceal it. This is a country that re-elected Bush, the dumbest of them all.

In truth and "rationality" (not that it matters in the US) the choice that would probably most serve the majority is Romney for no other reason than he is a seasoned politico and a lot of the people who hate Obama also hate him for the same reasons i.e. he's smarter than them.

If you discount Santorum you're making a big mistake. The fundie vote is estimated at 49 million. It is the largest single loyal voting block in America. Joined by traditional rural Republican's and white working class males that represents a formidable coalition, while many faux liberals have made it clear again and again right here on OS that Obama has disillusioned them one too many times.A Romney/Santorum ticket with Rove's money directed at the "independents" could set back the clock a hundred years.

Perhaps the humorous tone which I attempted in this piece has mislead some commenters into thinking that I do not take this subject seriously or stay informed. On the contrary, I take the prospect of a future President from this rather paltry field very seriously, and I keep very informed via newspapers, numerous magazines, tv news and internet sites, to the point of being considered somewhat of a news junkie. I realize that if I write about controversial issues, there will be some blowback, but really, folks, try to contain your instinct to strike out. Or I'll write my next blog about some cute thing my dog did. Then you'll be sorry...